Re: [IPFIX] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07.txt

--===============0446558492255909067==
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
 boundary="Apple-Mail=_0971731A-A90C-420D-A001-711BCAEB8259";
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512

--Apple-Mail=_0971731A-A90C-420D-A001-711BCAEB8259
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

On 2017-3-3, at 12:17, Abdelkader Lahmadi <[email protected]> =
wrote:
> So, we work on a new text to resolve ALL the raised issues and send =
you a version.

Hang on. Your RG chair should have explained how the process works.

This IRTF document is now being reviewed (per RFC5742) by the IESG. That =
review is *not* the same review that happens for IETF documents. =
Specifically, the IESG can really only say one of these five things:

>    1. The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this
>       document and IETF work.
>=20
>    2. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work =
done
>       in WG <X>, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.
>=20
>    3. The IESG has concluded that publication could potentially =
disrupt
>       the IETF work done in WG <X> and recommends not publishing the
>       document at this time.
>=20
>    4. The IESG has concluded that this document violates IETF =
procedures
>       for <Y> and should therefore not be published without IETF =
review
>       and IESG approval.
>=20
>    5. The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF =
protocol
>       in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
>       published without IETF review and IESG approval.


At the moment, you are getting individual comments from IPFIX experts as =
part of the IANA review process of the registry actions your document =
wants to make happen. Those are very valuable (thank you!), but before =
you make any changes to the document, please wait until an Area Director =
says that the issues raised are at a significance where they will ask =
for an IESG response other than #1 or #2 above.

It sounds like this is likely going to be the case here, but please wait =
until the ADs have caught up on the discussion. And please wait with =
submitting a new revision until that happens as well.

Lars


>=20
> Best,
>> On 03 Mar 2017, at 12:07, PJ Aitken <[email protected]> wrote:
>>=20
>> Abdelkader, it was me who did the IE-doctors review. That's only =
concerned with the IANA request; it's not an IPFIX review of the =
document.
>>=20
>> P.
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 03/03/17 11:01, Abdelkader Lahmadi wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> We haven=E2=80=99t really get a "proper review" of the document by =
IPFIX experts. Recently, we had a discussion with IANA and they asked =
IE-doctors to make a review, since that we received some points to be =
fixed regarding the proposed IE. I can forward to you the other comments =
from IE-doctors that we have received by IANA.
>>>=20
>>> Thank you for your comments, Ok we will fix the raised issues in the =
document.
>>> Best regards.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>> On 03 Mar 2017, at 11:42, PJ Aitken <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> Authors, has this document been reviewed by any IPFIX experts?
>>>>=20
>>>> I see a request on November 23rd, but no reviews. So let me sign up =
for that.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> First, I took a quick look at the Figures in Appendix B:
>>>>=20
>>>> Figure 1: the Field Count should be 5, not 2.
>>>>=20
>>>> Figure 2: the size of the optional Padding field is wrong: the =
figure shows 9 bits rather than 8.
>>>>=20
>>>> Figure 4: the Length of 32 should be 28. The =
"geospatialLocationPosLat" Information Element isn't defined.
>>>>=20
>>>> Figure 5: the Field Count of 2 should be 3.
>>>>=20
>>>> Figure 7: The "geospatialLocationPostLng" and =
"geospatialLocationtLng" Information Elements aren't defined.
>>>>=20
>>>> Figure 9: The sizes of the "CivicValue" data fields are not shown =
correctly. eg, "Inria Nancy-Grand Est" is depicted in 6 octets when it =
should contain 21. Therefore the Figure is misleading and difficult to =
understand; it is not a good example. Please redraw the figure =
correctly. Please mark the variable-lengths eg "vlen =3D 21".
>>>>=20
>>>> Figure 11:
>>>>   The Set IDs (311, 312, 313) do not correspond to the Template IDs =
in Figure 10 (306, 307, 308).
>>>>   Again, the "Inria Nancy-Grand Grand Est" field is depicted in 6 =
octets rather than the requisite 27. Without the repeated "Grand", the =
21 would be correct. Please write "vlen=3D21"
>>>>   The "Civic location Attr length" of 25 seems wrong.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> This document is not ready for publication. Please post an updated =
version so I can check that all the IPFIX details are correct.
>>>>=20
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> P.
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPFIX mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
>=20


--Apple-Mail=_0971731A-A90C-420D-A001-711BCAEB8259
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=03qA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_0971731A-A90C-420D-A001-711BCAEB8259--


--===============0446558492255909067==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

--===============0446558492255909067==--